I wish to register my opposition in the strongest terms to the proposed Gypsy / Traveller site in Baginton.

Placing this in a village environment can only be viewed as social vandalism and completely inappropriate.

I urge the planning department to re-consider their proposal.

I OPPOSE the new gypsy site planned for smiths nurseries (GT-07)

No no a thousand times NO. It's Not just a proposed Gypsy site, It
represents part of a prolonged attack on the areas of Baginton boundaries
and it is grossly unfair to everyone, including gypsies

I would be very much against having a gypsy encampment particularly in the Bagington area. We are already struggling with crowded schools, and we do not need a host of young children coming into the area. The increase in population would be inappropriate in a small village like Bagington. I therefore would like to reiterate my objection.

PROSPECTIVE SITE FOR TRAVELLERS/GIPSIES AT SMITHS NURSERIES,BAGINTON
I wish to register my strong objections to the proposal, and moreover to query why the Authority (WDC) has to provide the facility at all!
1.Community experience at Kites Nest, so called "horse fairs"in Kenilworth,and Meriden land occupancy.
*General disregard for good social behaviour by the Travellers eg pubs forced
to close, traffic hazards caused by Sulky type carts being ridden down very
busy roads.
2. Community Costs
* Who would own the land for the prospective site, or any other site in mind?
* What would be the costs of any supporting new infrastructure?Who pays?
*Can the Authority permanently enforce limits to numbers occupying site?
*Will the potential site occupiers pay their way as all other householders do?
* Will there be legal costs borne by the Authority to guarantee planning rules are fully adhered to?

Please look at the well publicised experience of Meriden residents, the Essex farm site and others. It shows how blatantly the Travellers/Gipsies flout the the laws adhered to by conventional householders, and totally negative effect their arrival has on established local communities.

Please note we both object to this proposed development of a gypsy and travellers site that is proposed at this site.
It is much too much with the gateway as well, we will no longer live in a village, but a busy town.

I am writing to formally object to the planning proposals set out in the following development proposals for Baginton Village.

I will try to describe within this letter what I believe are compelling reasons not to over develop the area in and around the Village of Baginton, and in particular the following three developments proposed namely:
1. The Gateway Project
2. The proposed 80-90 houses
3. The Gypsy & Traveller site
I believe all three developments are non-beneficial for the village of Baginton, I hereby ask the WDC to reconsider the proposals based on my comments below:


1. The Gateway Project
I am formally against the gateway project.
I am astonished at the way this project proposal has been manipulated and do not feel happy with the process that it has undergone in order to reach a state of "go ahead", however I will again list this time in brief why I feel this project should not go ahead.
I believe that the gateway project is an unsustainable development of precious green belt, the proposal being supported by little or no circumstance \ evidence that make it a more appropriate site than the many others suggested, the sheer scale of the proposed development is both out of character and destructive to the local area,
All Industrial sites will in the future need modernising perhaps even demolishing; when has this ever been the case with green belt and wildlife, the presence of green belt and wildlife is quite literally timeless.


2. The proposed 80-90 houses
I am formally against the proposed development of 80 - 90 houses in Baginton.
I understand that the Paris Councils "Housing Needs Survey" discovered that the residents thought that a maximum of 20 New houses should be the maximum; 80 - 90 houses in Baginton is too much for the village to be expected to accommodate and is a disproportionate growth of the village.
Surely the village has some say in how it is developed; it would appear that WDC are not considering its Baginton Parish Councils needs and ultimately its parishioners; instead I suspect they consider the development of an outlying village is of little or no consequence. I hope this isn't the case and would like to see more care being taken of our precious greenbelt with these proposals being tempered to acceptable levels or rejected outright.
3. The Gypsy & Traveller site
I am formally against the development of the Gypsy & Traveller site.
As I have already stated the development of green belt should be avoided where ever possible, to this end the inclusion of a traveller site cannot be allowed to go ahead within Baginton, the loss of the greenbelt and the associated negative effects listed in the consultation documents must be taken into account and an alternative site chosen.
I understand that several traveller sites already exist in close proximity to the ones proposed at Baginton - Siskin drive, Brandon lane and Oxford road. Surely this does not satisfy the Local Plan Strategy of "distributing development across the district" .
Baginton is a village as such it is not serviced as other larger populations are, the availability of doctors, schools, hospitals and public transport are all just adequate, stretching them further would not help anyone receiving these services.
I believe the two sites proposed to the south of Warwick District are preferable options compared with the two in Baginton, they are away from the greenbelt and have better capacity for the amenities required.
I urge Warwick council to reject the planning proposals mentioned above; Baginton is a beautiful village with buildings listed in the doomsday book, including listed buildings, an ancient monument, the remains of a Roman fort and a defined conservation area. These features must be considered in terms of proximity to the proposed developments. We rely on our council to temper these developments and ensure that they manage with a long term view.

I wish to lodge an objection to a Gypsy Traveller site in this area this will not be welcome newer our quite village

see Atached

I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Gypsy & Traveller site at the above location. The area will be overwhelmed with development as there is already The Gateway project for Baginton, how much do we want to squeeze into one small area. This plan is misconceived to say the least.

To whom this concerns or actually cares,
I strongly oppose any plans to create sites for gypsy's along the stoneleigh rd or in fact in Baginton. We moved to Baginton 3 years ago now from barnacle as we needed to get away from the neighbouring gypsy's on Top road aswell as the even more destructive gypsy's on Coventry road. They are currently on semi permanent sites up there and we had no end of problems with them. This is totally not acceptable as my 71 year old mother in law was regularly bullied to tears by Gypsy youth. This involved setting fires in her stable block, smashing up her static home where she would sit for a hot drink, Shooting at the horses with bb guns, shouting abuse at her and also killing all 10 of her chickens. I am absolutely against this proposal as we didn't pay all this money for this land and home to again be vandalised by more semi permanent gypsy's. I would like to see the decision makers agreeing to this plan if it was on there doorstep which i know if they had experienced what we had then they wouldn't dream of even talking about the idea!. The worst thing about this is we actually got on with the gypsy people in and around the site and STILL felt we had to move due to the hassle they brought to our every day life. This plan is an absolute NO NO. I have had first hand experience and im going to oppose this until the end. This villages is a lovely little village and yet you keep the proposals coming to turn this village into a complete ghost town with more traffic running through it then the m25.
It so ironic that you reject residents plans for extensions to there little homes yet you think that taking over all this farmed green belt is perfectly fine to do. Massive double standards if you ask me. Stop feeling sorry for these gypsy's as they never contribute to any of our local taxes. Like i said i know quite a few of them and are yet to meet a gypsy that doesn't have plenty of spare cash. They go around buying alnd for £180,000 plus so im sure they all could afford a house if they were forced to do so. If they feel the need to travel, then do it in the country they originated from. fill there parks and verges. This country has gone absolutely mad and seems to have no back bone. Its not even politically correct to have to supply sites for these people. The general rule is get an education, learn to the best of your ability, get a job and work hard to provide the best you can for your family legally. So why are we always the mugs that have to suffer. NO NO NO NO NO. I hope you have understood this message, NO!!!!!!

I would like to register an objection to the proposal as referenced above.
The idea of a Gypsy / traveller site in Baginton is totally inappropriate for such a small village.
It would put strains on the existing amenities and cause grief to the present villagers.
As you well know the property prices in the village would be severely affected and it would be interesting to know if this could be subject to a compensation order.

I have studied the new local plan and would like to object strongly to certain aspects which impact adversely on Baginton and the greenbelt.

1. Gateway;
This proposed development must be removed from the plan. There is absolutely no justification for building this ill thought out, unsustainable white elephant on Green Belt. There are no special circumstances and we all know that it was only approved by WDC planning committee through cynical manipulation of the committee membership and the conflict of interest represented by the developer and the LEP. I am sure if this development ever looks like going ahead the media will take a great interest in how this travesty became a reality. If it does go ahead the Green Belt will be ruined forever and there will be no significant job creation.

If the private sector thought it could develop businesses and create jobs in this area then Ansty and Ryton would be full by now and yet there is no sign of this happening in the foreseeable future.

Therefore Gateway must be removed from the plan.

2. Gypsy & Traveler site.
Again there is no justification in using Green Belt for this project. Baginton has no local facilities - medical, educational etc. and there is no safe pedestrian access to the proposed site. In addition it is perverse to talk about creating jobs and then put forward a plan which will adversely impact on successful rural businesses. Looking at the other options it is clear that this requirement could be met elsewhere in Warwick district without building on Green Belt while providing travelers with access to the key public services.

Therefore the Gypsy and Traveler facility should not be built on the proposed Baginton site.

Dear sir/madam

I write regarding the proposed location of gypsy and traveler sites in warwickshire, as outlined in the new local plan.

Points made on government guidance are referenced from "Standard Note - Gypsies and Travellers: campsites and trespass - id: SN/SC/1127 published by House of Commons Library, author Christopher Barclay - available online (www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN01127.pdf)

Government advice states "A Gypsy camp site is no longer appropriate development within the Green Belt." The proposed Gypsy and Traveller sites in Baginton (G101 & G107) are innapropriate development in the green belt.

The noise generated from the plains flying more or less directly overhead until late at night, combined the noise and light from the airport and associated business park, combined with the smells in the vicinity of the sewage treatment works, will lead to a reduced quality of life for the residents at the proposed sites.

Government guidelines state planning should address under-provision. There are three traveler sites within a few miles of G101 & G107 - at siskin drive, brandon lane, and oxford road which already meet such provision. The proposed sites do not satisfy the local plan strategy of "distributing development across the district".

There is insufficient provision for local doctors, schools, or hospitals, and current facilities are already sufficiently overcrowded that the residents of Baginton have difficulty obtaining such services. This does not match the government guidelines that suitable accommodation "from which travelers can access education, health, welfare, and employment infrastructure".

The proposed site on stonly road is on private grenbelt land used by a local business. It is unacceptable to damage that business' ability to be profitable by forcing them to give up their land to a development.

The proposed site G101 is located in an area that will be used by the coventry and warwickshire gateway development. This development proposes to deliver many thousands of jobs by your own estimates, and would be of greater benefit to the entire community than its use as a gypsy and traveler site.

The alternative sites proposed to the south of warwick distrcit are preferable to G101 and G107 as they are not on green-belt land, have access to better facilities, would not have an adverse impact on local businesses, and would not lead to an over-concentration of sites in one area.

The governments own statement is "to reduce tensions between settled and traveler communities in plan-making and planning decisions". After having many discussions with people affected locally, I can confirm that the manor in which the consultation has run has served to increase tensions between settled and traveller communities. I have heard many overt suggestions of intimidation and violence as a direct result of these discussions. (actions i personally neither support nor condone) I would strongly suggest further measures to be taken immediately in order to better inform local residents, in order to calm these tensions.

Dear Sir

Gypsy & Traveller site options - G101 & G107

I feel compelled to write to you as I feel very strongly and would like to object about the proposed above sites that is planned on existing Greenbelt land in Baginton Village.

I cannot understand why beautiful countryside should be lost when there are existing plots of land already in existence that would equally serve the same purpose. Once it's gone, it's gone.

Why do we have clear legislation that is there to protect greenbelt land when developments such as this are to be allowed to be proposed without due consideration for the impact on many areas such as wildlife and local businesses.

There are already three traveller sites within a few miles of those proposed in Baginton surely this would be disproportionate and would not satisfy the Local Plan Strategy of distributing development across the district.

One of the proposed sites is on land privately owned and home to a thriving nursery business which provides employment to many local young people. It is totally unacceptable to force them to give up part of their land when there are more suitable sites.

I do believe the proposed sites would have a negative impact on what is a strong community spirited village, it cannot be ignored that such developments have an adverse effect on local businesses which in turn would eventually lead to the decline of village life.

I urge Warwick District Council to rethink this area for proposed traveller sites.

see attached

see attached

see attached

The residents of Baginton are understandably alarmed at the recent planning decisions and proposals which appear to be made without any regard to the quality of the village or the life of its inhabitants.
Firstly the Gateway Development - an immense industrial development dwarfing and overshadowing Baginton village and effectively cutting it off from access to major roads and instead drowning it in massive day-to-day movement of people and traffic.
Secondly the rejection of the school application - a scheme which would have cleaned up and improved an unsightly area and upgraded the village.
Now this proposal to turn Smiths Nurseries into a camping site for Travellers is totally inappropriate for many reasons & I state the following as part of my objection to this proposal:
1. Smiths Nurseries is a well-managed family business, has been in the village for generations and is an asset to the village, providing local employment etc - to shut it down or compromise it would be preposterous.
2. The Travellers are by definition - travellers - on the move, with vehicles / caravans etc and need to be sited near the main roads. The Gateway development effectively cuts off Baginton and deliberately makes access from the A45 & A46 difficult.
3. The site on Siskin Drive - ref. GT01 - is well placed for access and should be developed further. Also with the huge Gypsy site on the Oxford Road (A423) there is already disproportionate provision made for them in this area. If this is still considered insufficient, then include them at the A45 end of the Gateway development.
4. Baginton is a small village and wants to keep its status and character. It has no Doctor's surgery / Chemist / shops (other than the one small village shop) or facilities for the travelling community (all facilities deemed necessary in your 'Local Plan' package).
We know planners have to make difficult decisions, but not at the expense and expectations of the communities you are employed to serve.

see attached

I feel I must write and show my objections for the proposed Local planning development strategy for Baginton village.

gypsy / travellers site.

* The size of this site will result in it becoming a dominant feature within the village,
this will increase demand for the already over stretched amenities.

* There will be a significant number of children from the site requiring school places within the
Baginton catchment area, where it is already difficult for the Baginton children to obtain their
first choice school.

* The link between gypsy / traveller site and crime is hotly debated, however it's mere perception
Will cause the value of property within the area to decrease.

* With the Coventry and Warwickshire gateway been given the go a head, this is far too much
development for a small community, causing a reduction in the quality of life for both travellers
and current residence alike.

* There are already three traveller sites within a few miles of the proposed site at Baginton.
Therefore the proposed site at Baginton will not satisfy the local plan strategy of
distributing development across the district.


Housing.

* The 70-90 houses proposed for Baginton is an unacceptable increase for a small community.
The council should take into account village desires under the localism act,
the outcome of our parish plan and the housing needs survey should be used.

see attached

see-attached

see-attached

see-attached

see attached

I write to lodge an objection in the most vigorous terms to any
proposal toplace a gypsy and traveller site within the environs of Baginton
Village, Warwickshire.

But first, having had access to the booklet produced about the Local
Plan by Warwick District Council, dated June 2013, I feel I must comment
concerning the portrayal of gypsy and traveller sites within the booklet, in
particular the photographs included. I have personally been onto several gypsy and
traveller sites, both private and local authority, both legal and illegal, and
have seen many others through TV and other media. I have NEVER seen one even
vaguely similar to the photographs within your booklet - there are no dogs, no
gas canisters, no children, no vehicles, no toilet blocks or other facilities, no pushchairs, no bikes, no rubbish disposal facility - indeed no rubbish
- the grass is tended, there is no tarmac and no sign of how the gypsies/travellers earn their living.
To me, this calls into question the integrity of Warwick District
Council and the whole project, there clearly is NOT a policy of HONESTY in dealing
with or promoting these uncomfortable issues. Of course, if you can tell me at
what gypsy and traveller site the photographs were taken and when, I would
have an opportunity of viewing this exemplary site myself and might well have
to apologise for stating that I doubt the integrity of the project. I
very much doubt that will occur, but would be interested in the comments of the
producers of the booklet.

Back to my objections:

Baginton is a small semi rural village, sitting on the Warwickshire/West
Midlands border which already this year has been bombarded with the
Gateway planning scheme which was approved despite the numerous objections and
concerns of villagers. This is far too much development in a short period of
time for a small community.

The map showing the area proposed is many acres - is this the reality
of what is proposed or another inaccuracy? Presuming it is accurate, then the
size will result in is becoming a dominant feature within the village, vastly
increasing the size of the village population with no corresponding increased
supply of amenities or funding.

It would heavily affect several businesses in the village - in
particular the village pubs which due to the proximity of at least one of them to the
site would run the risk of becoming the 'local' of the gypsies/travellers -
I'm very afraid that however it was packaged it would result in the villagers
being uncomfortable in the pub and ultimately reducing their use of it.

The schools within the catchment area for Baginton children are
already over subscribed and local children often unable to attend the school of
their first choice. It would be wholly inappropriate and unfair to allocate a
number of places to children of travellers who may or may not be present to
attend the school, when there are local full time residents who require those
permanent places.

There is believed to be a link between crime and gypsy & traveller
sites -which would adversely affect the local community, but even more the
perception of crime due to the site will drive down the value and desirability of
property
in the area - something which is already affected by the aforementioned
Gateway scheme.

To place this type of scheme within the heart of a small community
will result in seriously strained community relations - gypsies and travellers are
notorious for their lack of engagement outside of their own community and there
is no reason to expect this to change - and the quality of life for both
residents at the proposed site and the current village inhabitants will be seriously
detrimentally affected.

Finally, it is apparent from the map of the whole county that the
majority of the proposed sites are at the far reaches of the county - and it is
clear that other counties agree with this strategy (ie Siskin Drive traveller site
is on the West Midlands/ Warwickshire border) so anywhere on the edge of a
county is
disproportionally disadvantaged in this issue. Is there a reason for
this strategy? Surely sites should be spread equally around the counties -
and hence the country - taking into account the location of neighbouring
counties' sites rather than clustering them on the edges of the county - very
close to the ones on the neighbouring county. Siskin Drive traveller site (owned
by West Midlands) is within two miles of Baginton village - which means we are
already affected to a certain extent by a gypsy/traveller community - surely a
more equal geographic spread would benefit the gypsy/ traveller community,
which is after all, the community you are seeking to support in this plan. A
site NOT within two miles of an existing site (regardless of the owning district
council) would be far more appropriate.

With reference to the above Warwick District Council proposal I would like to register my objection in the very strongest terms.

I understand that the council is required to meet the accommodation needs of the Gypsy community but it is hard to think of a more unsuitable location for this project.
Have the planning committee not asked the simple obvious questions concerning this site? Questions about access, doctors, hospitals, schools, public transport and other facilities needed by the traveller community but glaringly deficient at this location.
Have the Planning Committee not visited the site to note, among other details, that Baginton village already has a Traveller site, at Siskin Drive.

It would not require much effort to continue this list of reasons of the unsuitability of Baginton for this project and I am sure more of my fellow residents will have already informed you of them.
However, the most outrageous part of this proposal concerns the private land on Stoneleigh road which includes a local nursery. In the present economic climate it is completely unacceptable to propose anything that will effect local employment. The Nursery is a much needed economic asset and a valuable source of employment in the area. Any proposal that places a threat to this successful business is shameful.

Dear Sirs

We wish to lodge our objections to some of the proposals of Warwick District Council in their consultation documents, as they adversely affect our rural village community.

Gateway:
The Gateway is unsustainable and inappropriate development of the Green Belt with no very special circumstances. We support Baginton Parish Councils' request that the Local Plan should remove all references to the Gateway and amend all its projections accordingly.

Housing:
The 70-90 houses proposed for Baginton is unacceptable and disproportionate increase for the village. The Local Plan must not dictate the type of housing development to villages, but rather should take into account village desires under the Localism Act. Outcomes of our Parish Plan and Housing Needs Survey should be used in preference to the proposals in the consultation document, i.e. a maximum of 20 houses.

Gypsy/Traveller Site Options:
* The proposed Gypsy and traveller sites in Baginton (Ref G1010 & G107) are inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The consultation documents identify manor negative effects as to the sites being located on Green Belt land and being adjacent to Coventry airport, the industrial park and in the vicinity of several sewage treatment works, with the associated noise, light and air quality effects.
* The proposed sites are not within easy reach of local facilities such as doctors, schools, hospitals etc. And there is poor public transport provision.. Access from the sites to the village along the grass verges are not suitable for pushchairs, wheelchairs or use by the inform
* There are already tree traveller sites within a few miles of those proposed in Baginton at Siskin Drive, Brandon Lane and Oxford Road. Therefore the proposed sites d not satisfy the Local Plan Strategy of 'distributing development across the district'.
* The proposed site in Stoneleigh Road is on private land, which includes part of the local nursery. It is unacceptable to adversely impact on a rural business by forcing them to give up part of their land for such development, when there are more suitable sites.
* The alternative sites proposed to the south of Warwick district are preferable options to the two proposed in Baginton as they are outside Green Belt, have better access to facilities, would not have an adverse impact on a rural business and would not lead to an over-concentration of sites in one area.

I should be pleased if you would register my vote AGAINST the proposed gypsy and traveller (ref G101 & G107) as I consider them to be in appropriate development in the green belt.